Chinese Official Demands Donald Trump Submit to the Paris Climate Agreement

Cop21-paris

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A senior member of the Chinese dictatorship has demanded that Donald Trump renege on his commitment to the American People to tear up the Paris Climate Agreement, if he wins the Presidency.

China criticises Donald Trump’s plan to exit Paris climate deal

In a rare comment on a foreign election, veteran climate chief says a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends.

China on Tuesday rejected a plan by US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to back out of a global climate change pact, saying a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends, a rare comment on a foreign election.

The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth, China’s top climate change negotiator told reporters, in response to a query on how China would work with a Trump administration on climate change.“If they resist this trend, I don’t think they’ll win the support of their people, and their country’s economic and social progress will also be affected,” Xie Zhenhua said.

“I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,” China’s veteran climate chief said.

Xie’s comments come as China plans to launch a national carbon trading scheme in 2017.

The scheme is on track and pilot programmes have already traded 120m carbon allowances with total transactions amounting to 3.2bn yuan ($472.29m), he added.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/01/china-criticises-donald-trumps-plan-to-exit-paris-climate-deal

At first glance it might seem that Xie Zhenhua is being completely unreasonable, but in my opinion the person who is really to blame for the confusion which led to this outrageous Chinese demand is President Obama.

Obama did everything in his power to convince the world that his signature on the Paris Agreement meant something. But without ratification by the US Senate, President Obama’s signature on the Paris agreement is just an autograph, without legal force or standing.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
286 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus
November 2, 2016 8:00 am

How about Trump demanding the exact same deal as China got ….Do nothing for 30 years except build more coal power plants…

Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 8:14 am

Thanks to fracked Nat Gas, while lowering prices, we are also lowering our CO2. When any other country does the same, then they can talk to us. Not that I care about CO2, but my point is that we are doing what they want because we are switching to something that is cheaper for us to use while simultaneously cleaner by their standards, CO2.

Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 9:32 am

As China is not doing as economically well as we are led to believe, according to the MSM, they would love to have the US hamstring itself and cripple its own economy. The demand is as self-serving as it can get.

Greg
Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 10:43 am

Amazing hypocrisy from the Chinese who have most of the last century in self-imposed near isolation and never gave a damn about “global trends”.
It is laughable that the dictatorship of the chinese communist party think they should be telling a candidate for an elected presidency what he should or should not be proposing to do.
They are clearly very happy with a deal where the western counties voluntarily agree to screw their own economies and let the chinese have a free pass for the next two decades.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 12:32 pm

China has become the Wok calling the Kettle Black.
USA CO2 production is down 7% while China CO2 production is up 13.3%comment image
China has a population of 1.384B and almost 1/2 (47%) live in what would be called Energy Poverty and still depend on Solid Fuels for heating and cooking leading to far greater localized and indoor particulate polution

TA
Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 12:50 pm

“It is laughable that the dictatorship of the chinese communist party think they should be telling a candidate for an elected presidency what he should or should not be proposing to do.”
The Chinese Dictatorship thinks they can tell *everyone* what to do. All Leftists and Totalitarians think they have the right to dictate to others. For the good of society, of course.

Rhee
Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 11:12 am

Tell Xie that USA will start considering to implement the Paris accords in 2050, allowing 3 years to study whether the Chinese implementation has borne any fruit for the change of climate.

gary turner
Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 12:02 pm

It seems to me the proper response from Trump is, “Dear China, blow it out your ***.”

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  gary turner
November 2, 2016 5:55 pm

Anthony someone is f***ing with your website

Latitude
Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 12:29 pm

How about Trump demanding the exact same deal as China got ….
If we going the way we’re going….we will be a “developing” country and qualify

Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 3:38 pm

“China’s carbon dioxide emission will peak by around 2030 and China will work hard to achieve the target at an even earlier date,” Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said in a statement after meeting French President Francois Hollande in Paris.
Reuters

NW sage
Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 2, 2016 4:45 pm

Riiight! and the will accomplish this ‘peak’ my simply ceasing to measure CO2 after 2030 and declare compliance.

David A
Reply to  Science or Fiction
November 3, 2016 5:34 am

China will work hard to achieve peak CO2 earlier. ( IE, build more planned fossil fuel engery plants earlier then currently planned.)

Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 3:56 pm

Tell Xie Zhenhua to go pound sand.

Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 4:04 pm

+30

Mike
Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 10:56 pm

When people call Obama a Chicom stooge, they’ll be doubly right – a Chinese and Chicago stooge.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  Marcus
November 3, 2016 2:49 am

Why are our “leaders” most-often the cause of our problems?

TA
Reply to  Horace Jason Oxboggle
November 6, 2016 4:37 am

“Why are our “leaders” most-often the cause of our problems?”
Really good leaders don’t come along very often. It takes a special person to see the Big Picture and also have the drive and energy and determination to accomplish what that Big Picture says needs to be done to secure the future.
There are a lot of powerful, assertive leaders, but few of them really have any vision for the future, other than the shortterm, selfish view.

Sanata Baby
Reply to  Marcus
November 4, 2016 2:40 pm

The Paris agrement is really a plan to move all Western industry(capitalism) to China and India?

November 2, 2016 8:01 am

The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth, …

http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20130228/001ec949fb5912992fa934.jpg

TA
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 2, 2016 1:01 pm

“The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth, ”
Yeah, Trump will start out this economic “balancing” by declaring China a currency manipulator.
China’s leaders and Trump are going to have a lot to discuss in the future. Expect a lot of belicose statements from Chinese spokespeople in the future, too. It’s not going to intimidate Trump, though. Trump will be the one doing the intimidating. Trump is going to straighten out our trades agreements, and China is Job One. China likes having a huge trade surplus with the U.S. so expect them to complain when Trump decides to reduce that figure drastically in the favor of the U.S.
I can hear them hollering now.

MarkW
Reply to  TA
November 3, 2016 6:43 am

China “manipulates” it’s currency by buying US treasuries.
Do you really want China to stop buying US debt? If not them, who?

Bryan A
Reply to  TA
November 3, 2016 10:44 am

I certainly would rather China NOT hold debt paper against US. I would rather have US not indebted to any foreign power

MarkW
Reply to  TA
November 3, 2016 11:53 am

There’s an old saying. When you owe the bank $100 dollars, the bank owns you. When you owe the bank $1M you own the bank.
We owe so much to the Chinese, that if we were to default on the debt, it would destroy their economy.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 2, 2016 3:21 pm

Lol! Can you see their solar panels?

November 2, 2016 8:01 am

The scheme is on track and pilot programmes have already traded 120m carbon allowances with total transactions amounting to 3.2bn yuan ($472.29m)
what a scheme: average allowance is 472.29/120 = $3.94

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 2, 2016 10:00 am

And even that is at least 10-fold too small for the CC cultists.
As I recall, carbon trading allowances of at least $40/mt carbon are believed needed to achieve a change in market behavior. Then to actually force the market to bring anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, allowance numbers of $400 to $1000/mt are thrown around.
Apparently the illusion of doing something is all that matters.

Bryan A
Reply to  joelobryan
November 2, 2016 12:35 pm

And of course, just like the Congress of the US, these carbon laws will not apply to those that create then

Reply to  joelobryan
November 2, 2016 12:37 pm

joel, I believe that was announced by the “Beloved Leader” of the capitalistic country of Canada. just last month. Makes you wonder.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 2, 2016 3:52 pm

“Then to actually force the market to bring anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, allowance numbers of $400 to $1000/mt are thrown around.”
That won’t slow down the likes of Leo, Al and their jet setting buds.
Even if gas is $100 per gallon they’ll still cruise in their yachts.

Geoff Withnell
Reply to  joelobryan
November 3, 2016 5:46 am

Oh no, that is not what matters. I am sure that what matters is that some of this money ends up in the hands of the Chinese leadership.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 3, 2016 5:01 am

but whatever sum..and it will rise
the fact is its ALL about someone in the green scum pond making megabucks once again isnt it?

November 2, 2016 8:04 am

“The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth”
“I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,”
NFW

george e. smith
Reply to  William E Heritage
November 2, 2016 9:33 am

I believe the alternative spelling is ” NutZ ! ”
G

DonM
Reply to  george e. smith
November 2, 2016 10:35 am

Similar to General McAuliffe, acting division commander of the 101st Airborne Division and surrounded by German troops in Bastogne, Belgium, during World War II.
German negotiators demanded a surrender and needed a response, from McAuliffe, that they could deliver to their bosses; McAuliffe said tell them “NUTS” and walked away.

Bryan A
Reply to  george e. smith
November 2, 2016 12:38 pm

China should put their money where their mouth is and begin “Policy stances that Conform with Global Trends”
OK China, If you want President Trump to conform with global trends, show us first that you can first…Walk the Talk

November 2, 2016 8:06 am

This episode, assuming that Trump wins, will be a great opportunity for everyone to see how our government actually works. The President can say what they want, but at the end of the day, our laws are above the presidency.

Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 9:44 am

The agreement is neither a treaty or a law. We don’t have to say anything or do anything. Obama committed to it, not the American people. The president doesn’t make law. We don’t live in a dictatorship…. yet. Executive orders hold no force of law.

TA
Reply to  rishrac
November 2, 2016 1:08 pm

The Chinese ought to sue Obama for false pretenses. Obama lied to them and claimed he could do something he could not really do, which is bind the U.S. to a treaty without going through Congress. Obama misrepresented the facts.
Of course, the Chinese know all this. They are just blowing smoke. They probably think if they make a big deal out of it, they might become the leader of the pack at the UN on climate change, especially considering that the U.S. will no longer be in that role.

Mike
Reply to  rishrac
November 2, 2016 10:59 pm

Even better China, ARREST Obama for fraud next year, many of them in fact…

Reply to  Mike
November 3, 2016 12:02 pm

Not the first time a foreign country has a bounty on

Bill Yarber
Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 10:20 am

Has 8 years of Obama taught you nothing? Obama put in leftist/enviros at head or & throughtout all organization in his Admin! Blatantly broke Constition at ever turn and Congress whistled pass the graveyard. The head tells the snakes body what to do and where to go. We need a POTUS who loves USA more than money to stop our AGW foolishness!

Bryan A
Reply to  Bill Yarber
November 2, 2016 12:41 pm

Fortunately a change of leadership equates to a change of administration.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Bill Yarber
November 2, 2016 2:41 pm

I’m ready for Year of the Woman and the first Female Administration at all levels. Anything is better than the current (unseen) CO2 presidency theme…with wrecked science as a side casualty. And I’ll take the selling of Presidential pardons if it means no more side deals for insiders running fake renewable energy firms into the ground at taxpayer expense.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bill Yarber
November 2, 2016 3:19 pm

Well, RGuy — brace yourself: TRUMP IS GOING TO WIN.
And, apparently, you are so upset about the “CO2 presidency theme” (and understandably so) that you are not able to think straight. Just a friendly reminder:
1. Democrat polices are wrecking the economy — this hurts everyone (even women).
2. So what if fake solar/wind/”renewable” companies are shut down?? The legal ones are a blood-sucking tumor on our economy (via taxes bleeding income from businesses and consumers and via rate-surcharges bleeding money that could have created new jobs via investment in capital like factories/trucks and via consumers spending on products made by the new job holders).
Rotten & Co.’s syndicate plans to expand this junk by 500 million solar panels (and that’s just part of their racket)!

george e. smith
Reply to  Bill Yarber
November 2, 2016 7:00 pm

Well we have had some very fine women candidates run; and one day one of them will win.
Hillary Clinton was the prime enabler for Bill Clinton’s multiple assaults on women; so much for her concern for women’s issues.
We had enough morons wanting to be a part of history and vote for the first black president; not counting Bill Clinton; and some of them even admit to voting for him twice even after watching four years of is scorched earth destruction of American values.
Hillary is NO Margaret Thatcher; it’s not known whether she is capable of polishing Margaret Thatcher’s shoes. She is not known for having done anything in her whole life.
Perhaps she will see the day when a competent woman does become POTUS. She ain’t it.
G
As for her ability to defend this country; at this point what on earth does it matter !

DD More
Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 10:33 am

Now lets go back to that Obama U.S.-China Joint Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation act and what China did agreed to?
From the FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.
In political spin talk, China will grow CO2 at the rate they want till 2030, then will increase the mix of non-fossil fuel (think nuclear power, thorium reactors & hydro growth of 3X the size of the Gorges Dam). Their planned growth doesn’t need what the West considers ‘renewable’s. If you actually look at China Power future growth plan, Obama gave away the store to get exactly what China was planning to do anyway.
How hard will China have to go to get to the vaunted 20% non-fossil fuel share.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/11/non-fossil-fuel-sources-provide-25-chinas-electricity/
According to the latest round of statistical data issued by CEC, China’s nation-wide electricity generation reached 5550TW hours in 2014, for year-on-year growth of 3.6%.
In 2014, nationwide hydropower generation breached the 1000 TW hour threshold for the first time in history to reach 1070TW hours,
1070 TW / 5550 TW = 19.23 %
Despite China’s ongoing push for expanded wind power capacity, usage hours for wind power installations fell by 120 hours last year to 1905 hours. Nationwide grid-connected wind power generation nonetheless posted a year-on-year gain of 12.2%, to reach 156.3 TW hours.
156.3 TW / 5550 TW = 02.82 %
China’s grid-connected solar power capacity also posted an impressive increase in 2014, rising by 67.0% year-on-year to reach 26.52GW by the end of December 2014. Nationwide grid-connected solar power generation reached 23.11 TW hours in 2014, for a year-on-year increase of 170.8%.
23.11 TW / 5550 TW = 00.42%
Nationwide nuclear power generation in 2014 was 126.2 TW hours, for a year-on-year increase of 13.2% Usage times fell 385 hours year-on-year to 7489 hours on average.
126.2 TW/ 5550 TW = 02.28 %
Hydro + Nuc = 19.23% + 2.28% = 21.51% They are already over the 20 percent over now.
Another non-Senate approved Agreement.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  DD More
November 2, 2016 4:46 pm

I thought that we weren’t allowed to count hydro power as renewable or alternate, and that we weren’t allowed to mention nuclear.

schitzree
Reply to  DD More
November 2, 2016 5:50 pm

Hydro + Nuc = 19.23% + 2.28% = 21.51% They are already over the 20 percent over now.

OH, Well if we get to count Big Hydro and Nuclear the US is already over 30% itself.
It’s just too bad that the Greens have been putting so much effort into blocking new production of both over the last few decades. we’d probably be over 40% by now if they hadn’t, maybe even over 50%.

Reply to  Mike_GenX (@MikeGenx)
November 2, 2016 2:59 pm

our laws are above the presidency
=================
nonsense. Clinton pardon of Marc Rich for $550k donation. The US legal system is bought and sold.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ferd berple
November 2, 2016 3:29 pm

The system is just fine.
There is NO system that a crook cannot game. The key is: get rid of the crooks (especially those in the agency whose job is to do just that — like Comey).
One of the GOOD things to come out of the Nixon Watergate proceedings was: the system worked.
Not perfect. What human creation ever was??
The blame lies squarely at the feet of the corrupt individuals infesting Wash., D. C..
To fix it takes just one person: Donald Trump.

Pat Frank
Reply to  ferd berple
November 2, 2016 6:45 pm

Good call, Janice. Any system is only as good as the people running it. At least in a democracy, the bums can be voted out. Not so, anywhere else.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ferd berple
November 2, 2016 7:19 pm

Thanks, Pat. Thank you for taking the time to affirm that.
Praying for your paper (summarized in the “No Certain Doom…” youtube video) to be published — soon!
“P” is for peer review, publication, and… (grr) PATIENCE.
Hang in there!
Janice

Pat Frank
Reply to  ferd berple
November 2, 2016 10:06 pm

Thanks for your good wishes, Janice. Things are suddenly not looking good for the submission at the current journal. Still hope, but the sky is darker.
More than 5200 views of the video, though. So, word is getting out. All thanks to Jane Orient and Jeremy Snavely of the DDP.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  ferd berple
November 3, 2016 12:42 am

Janice Moore — Your writing exhibits a rare combination of sense and passion. — Eugene WR Gallun

Janice Moore
Reply to  ferd berple
November 3, 2016 6:52 am

Oh, Pat, that is too bad. I’ll keep praying, though! Take care.
Thank you, Mr. Gallun! #(:))

Monna Manhas
Reply to  ferd berple
November 3, 2016 8:11 am

You know, Janice, it’s just possible that Comey might not be a crook, although it certainly seemed that way the first time around. Scott Adams has an interesting take on Comey’s behaviour.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152531307171/james-comey-as-seen-through-the-persuasion

Janice Moore
Reply to  ferd berple
November 3, 2016 8:34 am

Hi, Monna,
Good to hear from you again. I hope you are keeping warm, up there!
LOL, though I don’t always agree with his philosophy, I love Scott Adams’ writing and thinking in general. Wit in the service of accuracy.
While Adams’ theory about Comey is intelligently (and creatively!) crafted, for me, it boils down to this:
If Comey was a “hero,”
he would have done his job.
We, the American people, hired him to prosecute crooks and make the U.S. justice system work. He is simply a paid-off thug for Crooked Hillary. The End.
Thanks for sharing some excellent writing.
Your American ally for truth,
Janice

Janice Moore
Reply to  ferd berple
November 3, 2016 9:58 am

P.S. (to Ms. Monhas) Forgot about the “why did he do it” re: new e mail revelation
I think: he was forced to somehow. I don’t have enough information to be fairly certain of any given possibility, but, something/someone (God, perhaps! — I HAVE (and others, too, no doubt!) been praying God would expose that rotten crook Clinton and destroy her filthy career — soon!) forced him into that.

November 2, 2016 8:08 am

There’s some concern that the Chinese “Carbon Trading Scheme” has some of the corrupt characteristics that lined Al Gore’s pockets with greenbacks in a totally non-transparent and “under the table” manner.
Not a good signal for China to send to the rest of the world!!!

BillK
Reply to  tomwys
November 2, 2016 7:16 pm

Didn’t you know AGW stands for “Al Gore’s Wealth”?

Tom Halla
November 2, 2016 8:10 am

Considering the size of the Chinese economy, less than half a billion dollars (3.2billion yuan) is a symbolic gesture.

Chris
November 2, 2016 8:15 am

“Chinese Official Demands Donald Trump Submit…”
He’s not going to like that.

Reply to  Chris
November 2, 2016 10:02 am

He’s just trolling Trump and giving Trump another credible talking point to his “US-first” mantra.

Bill Yarber
Reply to  Chris
November 2, 2016 10:21 am

He’s not going to give a damn so China better not push him too hard!

rbabcock
November 2, 2016 8:15 am

I remember being in LA in July in the 1960’s as a kid and you couldn’t walk down the street without your eyes stinging. I’ve also been to Beijing during a high pollution day and you couldn’t walk down the street without your eyes stinging and your lungs burning. Plus in LA there was a haze but in Beijing there was a fog.
I can say with a sample of size one it was far worse in Beijing. Maybe The Donald can explain the “people who lives in glass houses” concept to the Chinese government if he wins. With Confucius and all, maybe they will understand the concept.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  rbabcock
November 2, 2016 10:59 pm

“rbabcock November 2, 2016 at 8:15 am
I remember being in LA in July in the 1960’s as a kid and you couldn’t walk down the street without your eyes stinging.”
I experienced that in Christchurch, New Zealand in about 1996. I think that may have been due to solid fuel log burners though.

November 2, 2016 8:19 am

Obama’s signature comprises an executive agreement to a pact that has an opt out. The next executive can opt out. China doesn’t like that because it loses the unfair manufacturing/electricity advantage Obama stupidly gave them.

Reply to  ristvan
November 2, 2016 8:50 am

Rist: Worse than that. It is an illegal treaty that has not been submitted to the Senate for ratification as required by the Constitution. Typical of liberal government: laws do not apply when you REALLY want to do something.

November 2, 2016 8:20 am

Not a chance.

TonyL
November 2, 2016 8:20 am

The Russians financed anti-fracking efforts in the US, playing the US enviros as classic Stalinesque Useful Idiots. This of course, was to reduce downward economic pressure on their own gas export business.
The Chinese see the hobbling of US manufacturing via international regulation as in their own best interest. Again, they are playing the US eviros as Mao-esque Useful Idiots.

joel
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 2:57 pm

Yes. And notice that the D’s never complained about Russia interfering in US politics at that time.

MarkW
Reply to  joel
November 3, 2016 6:47 am

Leftists define right and wrong based purely on whether they benefit.

rwoollaston
November 2, 2016 8:22 am

Illuminating but not unexpected – Paris confers a massive competitive advantage upon China and other developing nations – not to mention the sales of solar panels. Paris must be one of China’s greatest polotical and economic triumphs, and not a drop of blood was spilt!

MarkW
Reply to  rwoollaston
November 2, 2016 9:29 am

Only because freezing to death doesn’t involve bleeding.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  rwoollaston
November 2, 2016 4:14 pm

Exactly! The Chinese are playing the West for fools!

Reply to  John Harmsworth
November 2, 2016 4:39 pm

but we are…

MarkG
Reply to  John Harmsworth
November 2, 2016 5:51 pm

Only some of us are fools. Unfortunately, all our governments are run by crooks.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
November 3, 2016 12:09 pm

No – “If your enemy is intent on their own self destruction, get out of their way” – The chinese are simply allowing us to play the fools.

November 2, 2016 8:23 am

Once the investments have been made its very hard to reverse and back out so I dont blame China for this.

November 2, 2016 8:24 am

China is to finance and France is to build the new UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, the current cost estimate is US $50 billion. This joint project is suppose to be a spring-board for a huge business in similar projects around the world, the thinking being “if it’s good for British it is good for xyz “
If Trump is to tear up the Paris Climate Agreement, the future of this Sino-French world wide mega business project may evaporate in the thin air.

Griff
Reply to  vukcevic
November 2, 2016 8:44 am

Well that’d be one good outcome from his election.
but in truth Hinkley has nothing to do with Paris agreement or climate change…
both Greenpeace and Christopher Booker have condemned it… its a pointless development which is only going ahead for reasons of political prestige.

Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:03 am

Professor Allan Lichtman says: Trump !

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:30 am

Greenpeace is opposed to anything that makes life better for people.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 4:18 pm

Wrong again Griff! Without the relentless pressure from the watermelons to reduce CO2 output, Hinckley Point would never be built. It is a project of idiotic cost and miniscule benefit. That’s how you know to colour it Green!

Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 8:25 am

The Donald is like a small child who won’t let any others play with his toys, nor will he countenance any view other than his own.
Whether the Paris agreement is right or wrong, this symptomatic of his basic behaviour traits. If applied to wider US international relations, the US may (despite its huge GDP) become marginalised as a global player with China and even the bureaucratic EU dominant.

rbabcock
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 8:27 am

I didn’t know you knew Trump personally. Thanks for filling us in.

TonyL
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 8:49 am

When you reference world leaders acting like children, I was sure you would reference our own spoiled brat, petulant President Stompy Feet.
“nor will he countenance any view other than his own” : Famously “I have a pen and I have a phone”
“Whether the Paris agreement is right or wrong” : The actual policy does not matter, going forward we are going to judge based on “basic behaviour traits”. Sounds like a plan to me.
“become marginalised as a global player” : Might this not remind you of the last 8 years of Foreign Policy under the current administration?
“even the bureaucratic EU dominant” : Speechless!
Other than that, great comment.

Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 8:52 am

+10

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 9:32 am

I remember in the first year of his presidency, when the Republicans complained that they were being locked out of all negotiations regarding ObamaCare, Obama had a two word answer “I won”.
Of course two years later, the Democrats tried to claim that the reason why ObamaCare was failing was because the Republicans refused to help draft it.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 8:56 am

“a small child” …. who managed to become a billionaire many times over….. who came in “early and under budget” ….. .
Hm. Who should I vote for? A lying crook whose policies will wreck the American economy?
Or the “small child?”…..
One vote for the “small child” coming up!

Paul
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 9:42 am

+1E6

Catcracking
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 3, 2016 11:30 am

Janice, that’s a logical way of looking at it. Another possible way is to remember the wisdom of our forefathers in writing the First Amendment establishing a free and independent press with the objective of having a watchdog on the “leaders”. Who should you vote for, a government that will be scrutinized by the press for every attempt to take our freedoms away OR a government that has the press and media in their pocket and will rubber stamp every action and cover up criminal behavior?
The choice is clear.

TA
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 1:18 pm

“Whether the Paris agreement is right or wrong, this symptomatic of his basic behaviour traits. If applied to wider US international relations, the US may (despite its huge GDP) become marginalised as a global player with China and even the bureaucratic EU dominant.”
The U.S. does most of its trading with Canada and Mexico. I doubt either one of them will try to marginalize their trade with the U.S. If they did, it would be detrimental to them.
China can go fish. They can’t threaten the U.S. and make it stick. The U.S. is in the driver’s seat. We just need a leader to take hold of the wheel and steer us in the right direction for a change.

AndyG55
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 1:41 pm

Terry, as a Clinton supporter, how don’t you feel a total and utter disgust for yourself.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 2:01 pm

EU dominant? You dont know much about Europe do you? Its communist version of the Clinton foundation. Its going bust in the next 10 years

joel
Reply to  Terry Warner
November 2, 2016 2:59 pm

So, right and wrong are irrelevant? Telling the world what they already know, this stuff is bogus, is what needs to be done.

November 2, 2016 8:26 am

All Trump has to do is pull all energy subsidies, level the playing field.
He doesnt have to say hes for or against climate change, just say hes against subsidies

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Fabo
November 2, 2016 9:21 am

Depends on what you call “energy subsidies”. Carbonistas love playing that game.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2016 12:47 pm

I condiser subsidies to be: Monies paid out by the Federal Government to a corporation to positively affect their economic viability.
I do not consider a subsidy to be: Monies Not Charged against a corporation that could negatively affect their economic viability.
(Monies charged against a company that negatively affect their economic viability is called a TAX)

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2016 12:51 pm

I meant fixed tariffs, abolish all fixed tariffs, let each energy source battle it out in the open market

Reply to  Fabo
November 2, 2016 12:20 pm

Reagan “deregulated” crude oil production and pricing in early 1981.

AndyG55
Reply to  Fabo
November 2, 2016 1:43 pm

And get rid of mandated renewable feed-ins.
As soon as the market decides, renewables dies..
leaving the rotting husks of useless crucifixes and bird burners littering the landscape.

Walter Sobchak
November 2, 2016 8:27 am

And what in the world makes anyone think that the Chinese have the slightest interest in adhering to the “agreement”. Their only interest is in making sure that the US continues to destroy its industrial base by enacting ever more damaging “environmental” rules.

AGW is not Science
November 2, 2016 8:32 am

“without ratification by the US Senate, President Obama’s signature on the Paris agreement is just an autograph, without legal force or standing.”
Hit the nail on the head, Eric. Of course, “King” Obama thinks he can make the U.S. do as he pleases, but sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

commieBob
November 2, 2016 8:38 am

If they resist this trend, I don’t think they’ll win the support of their people, and their country’s economic and social progress will also be affected,

I think Xie is missing the point of democracy.

RockyRoad
Reply to  commieBob
November 2, 2016 8:56 am

There’s collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the Chinese government, which explains why the Chinese government are for Hillary and against the Donald.

TA
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 1:23 pm

“There’s collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the Chinese government,”
And the Chinese probably have plenty of blackmail material from all those “collusions” with the Clintons over these many years. China owns Hillary. You can be sure of that.

Gerry, England
Reply to  commieBob
November 2, 2016 9:40 am

I think he is also missing the outcome of the election.

SMC
November 2, 2016 8:39 am

Comrade Xie needs to stick his comments where the sun don’t shine.
As for, “…a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends…”, to heck with global trends. Much of the rest of the world is AFU, IMO. Why should we follow them.

commieBob
Reply to  SMC
November 2, 2016 9:53 am

Ancient occidental wisdom: If all your friends jumped off a cliff …

SMC
Reply to  commieBob
November 2, 2016 11:26 am

Stand off to one side and watch.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
November 2, 2016 12:10 pm

Then comfort the girlfriends.

Reply to  commieBob
November 2, 2016 12:45 pm

MarkW : I am all for that!

TA
Reply to  SMC
November 2, 2016 1:25 pm

“As for, “…a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends…”, to heck with global trends. Much of the rest of the world is AFU, IMO. Why should we follow them.”
Xi is appealing to authority. Like the climate alarmists do. And like all others who don’t really have an argument, do.

Shoki Kaneda
November 2, 2016 8:40 am

“The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth…”
He means like seizing the South China Sea against applicable sea law and international conventions.

Griff
November 2, 2016 8:41 am

I don’t see he demanded anything…
He just pointed out it would be a bad decision which would have consequences.
The rest of the world is moving to implement the Paris agreement… how can the US stay out?

SMC
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 8:48 am

Easily. The Paris Agreement isn’t a treaty. It hasn’t been submitted to the Senate. It does not have the force of law. Hopefully, if Trump wins, he’ll withdrawal from the agreement.

Rhee
Reply to  SMC
November 2, 2016 11:24 am

wouldn’t have to formally withdraw since the “agreement” is meaningless as-is, so just ignore the whole mess and work to pass new laws that restore sane, scientifically sound order to US national policy

SMC
Reply to  SMC
November 2, 2016 12:34 pm

The agreement is meaningless, as-is, in the US. Trump still needs to withdrawal from it so, when the next idiot decides the Paris agreement is a good idea after all, it is that much harder to get it signed a second time… We could have another good ‘ol fashion controversy…again…ugh

Reply to  SMC
November 3, 2016 6:42 am

No, Trump needs no withdrawal. The agreement has no weight of law. It is merely an executive policy that the next president (even Clinton) can ignore. Obama knew he could not get it past the senate so went the easy route. But the easy route is also easily undone.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 8:49 am

Just because “the rest of the world” wants to jump off an economic cliff for some fantasy “reason” doesn’t mean we have to.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 8:52 am

Besides, you’d have to be stupid to implement the Paris agreement , Griff.

Griff
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 9:21 am

which makes the entire world, all its governments stupid.
not one of them have found any evidence or reason not to sign up to and implement Paris – except possibly the US.
all their economies will tank, leaving the US alone as a working economy…
Oh, come on!

Tom Halla
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:31 am

Griff–what is the name of that fallacy in Latin. . . I think it is argumentam ad populam, that as something is widely believed it is true. No one has spoken Latin as a native language in about 1500 years, so. . .

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 9:36 am

To quote the great philosopher “Stupid is as stupid does”.
The rest of the world is doing something stupid. IE killing their economies to solve a problem that never existed.
Even Mosher admitted the other day that environmentalism was just the cover for doing policies that had already been decided on.

RockyRoad
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 7:26 pm

There’s also no absolute proof that CO2 is causing global warming nor is there any proof that additional CO2 has been anything but beneficial, Griff. You’d have to be stupid to belong to a movement for which there is no proof. Common sense indicates you’ve been HAD!

Marcus
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:02 am

For one thing, The U.S.A. is a Democracy where people VOTE…Second, China does not even have to start to worry about it for another 30 years, as per the “agreement”…

Janice Moore
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:04 am

And, also, Griff, you appear to be unfamiliar with superficially polite “Chinese” —

should take…

= “Do this, or else you will be sorry.”

TonyL
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:13 am

“how can the US stay out?”
Easy, just ignore it. It is all nothing more than a great big pile of international rent seeking, and everybody knows it. Through it all, nobody has any power to enforce any of it.

Griff
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 9:22 am

The 99% other than the US aren’t going to like that.

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 9:37 am

Tough? What can they do about it?

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 9:48 am

Griff, you want 99%, I will give you 99%.
Russia, China, India have no obligations, only promises.
The EU is an economic shambles, in no position to make demands. Most of everybody else are on the “taker” side of the ledger, no wonder they signed up for it.
As long as we are on the topic of Treaty Obligations:
Let’s take a look at NATO, Member states have an obligation to spend 3.0% of GDP on defense. An obligation which has been universally ignored by European members for decades. The best of them barely manages 1.0% in a good year. (Even little Lithuania and Estonia do better. Of course, they both are right next door to the Russian bear.)
If the EU wants to whine about the Paris Accords, they can be reminded about other treaties that are out there. I bet they would not like that either.

SMC
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 10:41 am

It’s 2%, not 3%, if I remember correctly. And Britain and Canada meet the obligation also, or at least they did the last time I checked. As for the rest…

Griff
Reply to  TonyL
November 3, 2016 5:54 am

I think you’ll find that Brazil, India and China and whole of Europe will implement the changes.
The US is really out of step with world opinion/development of new technologies.

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2016 6:41 am

As if China, India, and Brazil mean anything. The Chinese don’t don’t have an opinion as its communist. What makes you think they have any intention of destroying their economic base anyway ? India has a problems that defy imagination. Pick a problem. Rampant poverty, child slavery, pooping on the streets ? And Brazil, that’s a joke, right ? Shanty towns, gangs and criminals. As if the poor huddled masses are crying out for climate change justice. In your mind Griff, only in your mind. I think all of them have been promised some form of financial incentive from the west ( meaning the US ) . Europe has decided to commit suicide . The only thing that will happen with money from the west will be to fatten up somebody’s piggybank. Your disconnected from the real world Griff.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 9:34 am

Fascinating how fascists think.
They actually believe that people have an obligation to do whatever the majority is doing.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 12:43 pm

Griffy-baby – The US can and should (will) stay out of conformance with the treaty, merely because it is not in best economic interest of the USA. Period. End of quotation.
The rest of the world can go any way they wish. And so should the USA. Most rational-thinking Americans, think the USA should go back to being a producing nation (as opposed to an environmentally and regulatory-repressed, non-producing nation), back to developing and utilizing our own natural resources to include the ready-made, idle, and waiting labor forces – to the eventual benefit of all Americans – and if history tells us anything regarding a prosperous USA, the rest of the world benefits as well – when trade deals between nations are equitable.
Don’t get me wrong, environmental controls will still be required as the USA shifts back to prosperity – but only as, when, where, and if required as opposed to the current punitively imposed regulations on air, soil, and water use.
I have had these ideas (ideals?) for a time long before Mr. Trump came along. While I, like quite a few people I know may not agree with some of what the Republican candidate for the POTUS says and does, a whole lot more of what he says and does I do agree with.
Rising out of the cesspool of unbalanced international treaties, above stifling environmental regulation, above welfare-stat-ism can only be good for a once-proud nation. You should come up here and visit the States sometime Griff. We have overcome greater odds before. You may be impressed with us here, who knows. We still have the stuff available to be a gret nation again. The rest of the world can come along for the ride, if they wish.
MCR

Griff
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
November 3, 2016 5:53 am

I love visiting the US and meeting Americans…
Y’all should get across to Europe and look at what goes on there…!

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2016 6:16 am

Don’t worry Griff, I have no intention of visiting Europe. I don’t consider being on my personal highest alert level a vacation. All those wonderful people they are bringing in.
Going there for business ….. do I have to ?

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2016 2:18 pm

Lived there for several years. I am very familiar with the continentals.

SMC
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
November 3, 2016 5:25 pm

I’ve been to Europe, various countries, many times. Lot’s of history, it’s expensive, pretty countryside once you get away from the cities. Other than that, Europe and it’s ideas can stay in Europe. I have no need, or desire to emulate Europe.

Latitude
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 1:11 pm

The rest of the world is moving to implement the Paris agreement…
By “rest of the world” I assume you mean all of the world that gets paid

TA
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 1:28 pm

“The rest of the world is moving to implement the Paris agreement… how can the US stay out?”
The Paris Agreement doesn’t even have an enforcement provision. Any nation can opt out without suffering any consequences, other than being browbeaten by Leftists/Alarmists.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 1:49 pm

““The rest of the world is moving to implement the Paris agreement… how can the US stay out?””
Easy.. just say… “No Thanks”

Reply to  AndyG55
November 2, 2016 4:22 pm

Nancy Reagan had the right line, just the wrong subject.
“Just say no!”

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 2:05 pm

Its voluntary Griff. Third world signed for the promised $billions from USA and EU. No one intends to follow it except the dickhead progressives in Europe;

David J
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 2:23 pm

So far, 92 out of 197 parties have signed the Paris agrrement. We would be going with the majority of the rest of the world if we did NOT sign.

joel
Reply to  Griff
November 2, 2016 3:00 pm

Oh, just yes no. Very simple.

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2016 8:46 am

They just handed Trump another reason to vote for him; peeing off China. He should be thanking them.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2016 8:49 am

I completely agree. China’s britches have been too big for too long.

Griff
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 9:23 am

great idea… put some aircraft carriers in the South china Sea, start a limited nuclear exchange.

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 9:38 am

As opposed to your preferred solution. Give the communists everything they want.

SMC
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 12:37 pm

@ Griff, why a limited exchange? If we’re gonna go that route, let’s go whole hog.

SMC
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 12:38 pm

oops…forgot the /sarc

AndyG55
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 1:50 pm

So Griff thinks saying NO to the climate treaty means a nuclear war.
That’s pretty SICK thinking !!

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 3:21 pm

Griff November 2, 2016 at 9:23 am
“put some aircraft carriers in the South china Sea, start a limited nuclear exchange.”
Grill, not a naval strategist either I see. USN CVNs can hit from a thousand miles away.
The one Chinese CV has no catapult. this limits the loadout for their airwings. Means no range no endurance and “yuge” bomb loads. That garbage scow can barely maintain “CAP” let alone offensive operations against a USN Task Group.
As for a nuclear exchange, have you paid attention to the missile attacks of our ships off the coast of Yemen?
One of the ships named is the USS Pounce. an anphib. It is the test bed for a new anti missile system. Laser.
Of course no mention of the system being used but the ship’s Captain has instructions to use it if attacked.
Also you may want to check out the new “rail gun” to to be fitted no the 2nd Zimwalt class DDX. So much for China’s bath tub navy.
michael

Bryan A
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 10:48 pm

Obviously Griff’s logic has now been proven to be as deluded as the logic behind the catastrophic AGW hypothesis which can only be “proven” by constantly adjusting the previous years of temperature data.
Or the logic used by Hillary’s campaign in labeling Trump a womanizer when she has clearly condoned womanizing simply by staying with Bill (who, by the way, has been reported as groping women on the campaign trail, on the plane, while traveling with Hillary)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 2, 2016 11:24 pm

“Griff November 2, 2016 at 9:23 am”
What a moronic comment. So not only do you know nothing about science, even basic fizzicks, you have no clue on war, esp nuclear war. I bet you don’t even know what an (UK) Royal Army “combo pen” is?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2016 9:42 am

Right Griff. Because refusing to go along with what the Chinese want means starting a nuclear war with them.

Griff
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 3, 2016 5:51 am

I’m pointing out a military confrontation in the South China Sea might be a very bad idea.
The Chinese regard that as home waters, even if their case is not recognised by the rest of the world.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 3, 2016 6:51 am

Translation: If the communists want something, it’s best to let them have it.

Resourceguy
November 2, 2016 8:48 am

Meanwhile they are considering John Kerry’s plea to stop buying coal from North Korea.

TA
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 2, 2016 1:38 pm

“Meanwhile they are considering John Kerry’s plea to stop buying coal from North Korea.”
From what I read, China is not serious about this sanction. They are discussing it with the U.S. but nothing is happening on the ground in North Korea.
The Chinese might have a more serious discussion with Trump over North Korea, since Trump has hinted that North Korean nukes might force Japan to build their own nuclear weapons in self defense, and Trump is not sure he could blame them. 🙂
The last thing the Chinese want is for Japan to get nuclear weapons, so if they thought there was a chance of that happening, I think the Chinese would get much more cooperative, in a lot of areas.
It is useful to keep your opponents guessing. It’s part of the Art of the Deal. Trump is good at the Art of the Deal. He wrote the book.

Resourceguy
Reply to  TA
November 2, 2016 2:44 pm

South Korea will be the first decider.

TA
Reply to  TA
November 6, 2016 5:21 am

A few days ago South Korean military vessels fired live ammunition at about 30 Chinese fishing boats that were encroaching on South Korean waters.
China is going to push forward until someone pushes back. That’s the way bullies and dictators operate. The only time they don’t push is when they think they will get hurt if they do. Make a bully think he will get hurt messing with you, and the bully will leave you alone. Unless he is a psychopath, and in that case, you have to get physical. Doing nothing, is not an option.

Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 8:50 am

… conform with global trends…

Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States of America, he has, thus, a fiduciary duty to do what is in its best interests.
China: We are your masters (Obama makes that very clear). Obey us.
Trump: Sure, pal — NOT!
*******************
Man — a — LIVE, those Chinese are hilarious. As IF. lololololol

TonyL
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 9:25 am

How true, Janice. Trump is certainly nobody’s idea of a globalist.
But all this stuff from the Chinese is actually pretty tame stuff. I remember back in the day, the Chinese would have running screeds against the US, calling us “Running Dog Capitalists” bent on world domination. Then they would call us “Yankee Imperialists”, also bent on world domination. And “Militaristic Cowboys” bent on …. In other words, they were accusing us of acting exactly like they are acting now in the South China Sea.
Ahh, those were the days.

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
November 2, 2016 9:39 am

Whenever you want to know what a leftist is planning to do, just check out what he is accusing others of doing.

Bryan A
Reply to  TonyL
November 3, 2016 10:54 am

It might depend on how much of the US Debt Paper ther hold and when they decide to call it in

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
November 3, 2016 11:57 am

They can’t call it in. The debt is due on the date specified on the paper.
If they get tired of holding it, their only option is to sell it to someone else.
Regardless, even if they did call it in, we would just do what we do every time one of these things expire. Pay for it by issuing new debt.
Or we could just crank up the printing presses and pay them with currency that is becoming worthless anyway.

Taxed to Death
November 2, 2016 9:18 am

The only goal for China is to destroy what’s left of our manufacturing sector. Who in the hell is going into China to check their CO2 emissions as per agreement. Nobody from the west will be able to monitor them. Maurice Strong via the UN and China planted China climate change scientists in the west to create mathematical models to convince our dumb politicans that we have a problem to reck our economy. They have done an excellent job and now want to put the nail in the coffin.

John Peter
Reply to  Taxed to Death
November 2, 2016 9:41 am

“The only goal for China is to destroy what’s left of our manufacturing sector.” Add a few other western countries populated with clueless politicians. China is carrying out continuous devaluation and building an industrial base to destroy in particular western manufacturing. Our only hope is Trump as long as he does what he has been promoting as presidential candidate. We simply need to put China back in its box in so far as it is possible at this late stage. Cannot believe the extent we in the west (including USA) have allowed our industrial base to be shifted out on the back of one sided trade agreements and a destructive desire to increase energy prices on the back of unreliable and heavily subsidised renewables.

Reply to  John Peter
November 2, 2016 12:54 pm

@Joghn and Taxed to death. In the context that both of you mention, nobody has talked about the influence they have and devastation China is doing in Africa. Why is this never talked about? The wreckage they are leaving behind is unbelievable.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Taxed to Death
November 2, 2016 11:21 pm

“Taxed to Death November 2, 2016 at 9:18 am
The only goal for China is to destroy what’s left of our manufacturing sector. ”
That is incorrect. The goal for our politicians and corporations is;
1. Reduce CO2 emissions (Politicians).
2. Increase profits. (Corporations).
Politicians make doing stuff harder due to “climate policies” on energy use. Corporations look to reduce costs. Solution? China. And China is laughing all the way to the bank. But be careful having all you credit and debt in one “basket” (China) is risky.
An example of this I can draw on is the Wall St. crash of 1929 that eventually lead to WW2 in 1939. Germany was being funded by American funds until 1929.

MarkW
November 2, 2016 9:25 am

Of course China wants Trump to stick with the Paris accords. The accords are resulting in massive transfers of wealth from the west, to China.
Regardless, getting in a fight with the Chinese dictators can only help Trump. Especially over Global Warming, which most Americans have already seen through.

Tom G(ologist)
November 2, 2016 9:39 am

If everyone took this stance:
“I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,”
there would be no innovation, no leadership… nothing but communism. Hmmm…

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom G(ologist)
November 2, 2016 10:04 am

…. no one to steal technology from….

Resourceguy
Reply to  Tom G(ologist)
November 2, 2016 10:10 am

Like land grabs in Crimea and sea claims and artificial islands (military bases) in the South China Sea

TA
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 2, 2016 2:02 pm

“Like land grabs in Crimea and sea claims and artificial islands (military bases) in the South China Sea”
And don’t forget the Chinese rape of Tibet. The ongoing rape of Tibet.
The Tibetans are pacifists and easy marks for the Chinese takers. I sure hope the ole Karma comes back to visit the Chinese on this one. They need to get just what they gave. That would be fair. I would enjoy seeing that.
The Chinese may not have as easy a time stealing land in the South China sea. The people who own that land are not pacifists like the Tibetans.
China better watch out who they take on militarily. The Chinese haven’t won a military victory in a very long time. Tibet doesn’t count since that is a theft, and a murder, not a military fight. Japan kicked the hell out of them in World War II. The U.S. and its allies kicked the hell out of them in the Korean war.
The last time the Chinese tried to steal someone else’s land was in the early 1980’s when they tried to encroach on northern parts of Vietnam. The Vietnamese military kicked the hell out of the Chinese military, and China was unsucessful in stealing their land.
So the only modern example of Chinese battlefied prowess ended in a military defeat. They are batting zero. I’m not impressed. They’ve got the goosestepping down pat, but that’s about all, as far as I can see.
A good military is more than weapons and numbers. It’s also attitude. An attitufe you get when you win all the time. Like when Americans go and fight somewhere. Yeah, I know we technically lost a couple of wars, but it wasn’t because the U.S. military didn’t kick the hell out of the enemy. No, the U.S. military defeated the enemy military, and then Leftist politicians in the United States gave it all back to the enemy. Doesn’t change who came out on top militarily.
We have the military and it works just fine. If we have the proper civilian leadership, we are unstoppable. Just keep the Leftists away from the levers of power, and we will be safe and sound, and get to keep our military victories, too, while making the world a safer place.

MarkW
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 3, 2016 6:53 am

China and Vietnam fought a short war about 20 years ago. I seem to remember it ending in a draw.

TA
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 6, 2016 5:40 am

“China and Vietnam fought a short war about 20 years ago. I seem to remember it ending in a draw.”
Yeah, that’s what I said: The Chinese were unsuccessful in stealing Vietnam’s land. The Vietnamese were not interested in invading China, just interested in stopping China from invading Vietnam, which they did. China was unsuccessful in their military efforts.

Cam_S
November 2, 2016 9:54 am

Also in the Guardian, this morning, commentary by John Abraham, on Obama’s Clean Power Plan, China US deal, and Paris pledges.
Barack Obama is the first climate president
A look back over last eight years shows that a president really does matter
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/nov/02/barack-obama-is-the-first-climate-president

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Cam_S
November 2, 2016 2:09 pm

John Abraham is a nasty little turd and has lost all credibility years ago. Along with the grauniad

Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 10:10 am

Here’s the deal. Donald Trump LIKES China. He just wants them to play by the rules of fair play and honest dealing.
“I like China” — Donald Trump

(youtube)
Really, likely all Trump would do upon reading the above statement by the Chinese official is: smile, shake his head, and chuckle, “Sure. Whatever.”
The Chinese are not mainly about dominating the world to dominate (as other ethnic groups have been). The main thing for the Chinese is: money.
Trump gets it.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 10:22 am

And UN-official China, with few exceptions, likes Trump:

(youtube — CNN report)

markl
November 2, 2016 10:11 am

I agree with Marcus. Tell China we’ll match their 30 year plan and call their bluff. The only thing China is worried about is losing their edge in trade that they currently enjoy. Nothing more.

BBould
November 2, 2016 10:25 am

They were obviously happy when Obama ham-stringed the American economy. If Trump is elected that goes all away and we’ll be on a much more even playing field.

November 2, 2016 10:27 am

Mass immigration from poor African countries is a direct consequence of IPCC influenced western governments (EU mainly) who impose biased global warming policies on these poor countries preventing them from exploiting their considerable coal reserves for power generation which would lead to their prosperity.

Dobes
November 2, 2016 10:44 am

Doesnt matter if its Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or anyone else. It is a non-binding agreement that needs no further discussion. Just ignore it. Unless its ratified by the Senate it means nothing and its all lip service to make it seem like we will do something. There isn’t another government out there that will follow thru especially when it comes to sending big checks to whining governments. Currently China heads the list of whiners.

November 2, 2016 10:49 am

The Chinese have no more intention of abiding by the climate agreement than they do to international law of the seas.

Mickey Reno
November 2, 2016 11:10 am

The Chinese are smart. They know they will be making most of the stuff we would need to buy to keep going down this insane renewable energy path. In the mean time, Trump should tell them that he’d listen to them after they stop building new islands and after Beijing’s toxic smog problem is under control, just to prove they know what they’re talking about.

November 2, 2016 11:51 am

That’s rich. #1 taking advice from #2 is good business? Yea, for #2!

James Francisco
November 2, 2016 12:30 pm

“If they resist this trend, I don’t think they’ll win the support of their people, and their country’s economic and social progress will also be affected,” Xie Zhenhua said”
Economic and social progress will be affected alright

Bruce Cobb
November 2, 2016 12:54 pm

One-word answer to China’s “demand”:
Nuts!

November 2, 2016 1:10 pm

I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends
*******************************
so democracy in china??

GregK
Reply to  dmacleo
November 2, 2016 7:14 pm

The Chinese are probably right.
Democracy is hardly a “global trend”
http://www.eiumedia.com/index.php/latest-press-releases/item/2127-democracy-in-an-age-of-anxiety

RD
November 2, 2016 1:19 pm

Nope.

November 2, 2016 1:33 pm

Chinese soot or Iceland volcanic ash ?
Just watching BBC2’s reporter flying in a helicopter over a glacier in the south of Greenland. The glacier looks not only surprisingly filthy, it was black! never expected it to be so dirty, I felt a bit upset about it.
If it is Chinese carbon soot it is dreadful, if it is Iceland volcanoes ash accumulation on the surface from the years of melt, it might explain a lot about Greenland’s ice.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 2, 2016 1:47 pm

Its bacteria, not soot. Perfectly natural but I’m sure its because of________ (insert buzz word here)

Reply to  vukcevic
November 2, 2016 2:00 pm

Went onto the BBC’s website and found it on the IPlayer, captured the screenshot, here it is.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GreenlandGlacier.jpg
Surprisingly the BBC reporter did not refer to the blackness of ice, don’t know how he missed it.
If it is Chinese soot, I am even more upset, I’m thinking of boycotting ‘made in China’ stuff if I can do without it.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  vukcevic
November 2, 2016 11:07 pm

I always try to buy Australian made/owned, but it is increasingly difficult these days, even food. A few years ago I got a head cap from Ethiopia. It was made in China!!!

Reply to  Marcus
November 2, 2016 3:43 pm

well, if so then proliferation of the ice bacteria may have ended ice age, but how do you start it?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  vukcevic
November 2, 2016 11:09 pm

Remember in the 80’s when CFC’s released in the northern hemisphere gravitated over Antarctica creating the hole of doom?

Griff
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 3, 2016 5:46 am

yes… and then we had international treaties to reduce CFCs and the problem was resolved…
gosh – imagine if we had an international agreement on reducing CO2…

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 3, 2016 6:56 am

There never was a problem to resolve. As subsequent science showed, the ozone hole was 100% natural and CFCs played no role in the destruction of ozone.
But of course, Griff believes whatever his masters tell him to believe.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 3, 2016 7:02 am

“Griff November 3, 2016 at 5:46 am”
Too funny Griff, something else you know nothing about. Keep ’em coming funny boy!

Bryan A
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 3, 2016 11:00 am

Yeah Griff just imagine it…Trees start dying off from suffocation. Cereal crop yields diminish by 40%. Ethanol must be removed from fuel because corn yields have dropped to the point that it is no longer capable of being both a food source and a fuel source…Wait, If it gets ethanol out of gas…

November 2, 2016 2:02 pm

China controls the market for wind turbines and solar panels.
That is why China wants the US to abide by the Paris agreement.
If the US leaves a large part of the rest of the world will also eventually exit.
That is billions that China won’t be making off of the irrational CO2 fear.

Mike Maguire
November 2, 2016 2:04 pm

The stated, main objective of the Paris Climate Agreement is a front. The real objective is to establish sustainable development around the world, while equalizing the greatly unbalanced standards of living.
(Over) developed countries like the US, must cut back on their use of natural resources, especially efficient fossil fuels, while less developed countries like China(based on their much lower standard of living) are allowed to increase their burning of fossil fuels.
The (over) developed countries are also the ones contributing to the Green Climate(and other) funds. This money goes to the less developed countries, supposedly to be used by them to adapt to climate change caused by the developed countries ruining their climate. Despite the fact that the last 4 decades have featured the best weather and climate on this planet, since the Medieval Warm Period ~1,000 years ago.
Life benefiting CO2 emissions from burning energy efficient fossil fuels are one of the best measures of a country’s standard of living and productivity.
If you objectively look at how life on this planet has done, going back eons, it’s crystal clear that it has always done better at this temperature to several degrees warmer vs anything cooler.
Atmospheric CO2 levels 150 years ago were dangerously low and life would prefer CO2 levels to be higher than the current 400 ppm.
So the increasing global temperatures and CO2 levels have pushed the atmosphere into the “sweet spot” for most of life.
Don’t agree with that? Consider what would happen if we cooled off 1 degree C and dropped CO2 levels to below 300 ppm.
The plunge in crop production and plant productivity, being something like 20% would result in widespread starvation.
There has been nothing unusual about recent extreme weather or climate, with the exception of an increase in high end/extreme rain events because warmer air holds more moisture. The authentic question that should be asked is: how much warmer and how much higher can CO2 go before these indisputable benefits no longer dwarf the detrimental effects that will start increasing?
The biggest problem to getting the right answer is the falsely perceived view/assumption of today’s climate being worse than the climate of 100 years ago because of the increase in CO2 from human emissions.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Maguire
November 3, 2016 6:57 am

Fascinating how some people are so conceited that they actually believe that they are entitled to determine who is over developed and who isn’t.
Mike, I have quite a few things to tell you, but all of the would get me moderated, so let’s settle for this.
Sod off.

imamenz
November 2, 2016 3:33 pm

Thanks Xie for helping out Trump during the last push. If China is anti-Trump, he must be a good choice.

November 2, 2016 3:41 pm

Should be easy enough to handle for a putative Trump POTUS. “If you want us to stick with the Paris sham – which you were foolish enough to sign up for – all you have to do is provide the empirical evidence refuting the null – i.e. that what we observe is natural variation”.

jmorpuss
November 2, 2016 3:56 pm

Updated October 22, 2016.
The U.S. debt to China is $1.185 trillion, as of August 2016. That’s 30% of the $3.948 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of the $19 trillion debt is owned by either the American people or by the U.S. government itself.Oct 22, 2016
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-it-own-3306355

marque2
November 2, 2016 4:04 pm

China likes the deal because they are exempt, so European companies to meet emission goals dismantle factories and have the products made in China, which often uses more co2 in the process.
The racket is quite beneficial to.China and they don’t want it to stop.

jmorpuss
November 2, 2016 4:18 pm

list of the largest consumer markets of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets
list of countries by merchandise exports, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
When I was growing up , if it hade made in China on it, you put it back on the shelf because you knew it wasn’t going to last . Now we snap that crap up like there’s no tomorrow. Is China the leader when it comes to planned obsolescence
“Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

jmorpuss
November 2, 2016 4:40 pm

After years of observation, it appears to me, that we vote in the best liar. What they say during their campaign, is nothing like what really happens. I think the US would be better of ,dragging in of the street someone that had no ties to any political part and make him or her president. A bit like Trading places, staring Eddie Murphy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjDbJQKDXCY

November 2, 2016 5:11 pm

I hope if Trump is elected that he will support Vietnam and the Philippians to retake the South China Sea as an open and international area, even if by force…Hillary will never do that. I served in the US Navy during Vietnam, and the whole area was international waters…Let’s keep it that way.

Simon
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 2, 2016 7:22 pm

If Trump is elected I give it three months before there is a serious escalation in tension between the US and some other country/countries. Within a year there will be a war. I’m so glad I live as far away from the US as possible.

Marcus
Reply to  Simon
November 2, 2016 7:26 pm

…What planet have you been living on for the past 8 years ? The world is in turmoil right now because of the Obama and Clinton policy decisions…
P.S…..Trump was AGAINST the Iraq war…D’oh !

Tom Halla
Reply to  Simon
November 2, 2016 7:36 pm

I think you are getting bad reporting, Simon. Hillary Clinton is rather more truculent as far as foreign policy than Trump. Considering what the US press does to political reporting from the UK or Australia, they have a decided bias.

SMC
Reply to  Simon
November 2, 2016 8:43 pm

It won’t matter if Trump or Hillary wins, unless there is some very smart diplomacy, there’ll be a war. Right now, it’s just a question of timing and where it starts.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 7:00 am

Ever notice that no matter how aggressive the communists get, it’s always the fault of the US for not capitulating fast enough.

Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2016 10:15 am

The communists can fight a war much more cheaply than the US. Similar to the Nips in Burma during WWll, each soldier was given a bag of rice then told to capture British supplies and press on. The tactic was successful until the battle of the Admin Box, then Kohima and Imphal.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 10:53 am

Marcus
So when Trump was asked if he was for the war and he said “Yeah, I guess so; I wish the first time it was done correctly.” (Interview with Howard Stern, 2002)”
He meant “no”?
Doh!!!

November 2, 2016 5:11 pm

It is depressing that, although it is commonly understood that the presence of water vapor has made the planet warm enough for life, instead of realizing that the steadily rising water vapor has contributed to global warming and is now countering global cooling, the effect is blamed on CO2 which has no significant effect on climate.

Simon
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
November 2, 2016 11:40 pm

And why do you think there is more water vapour in the air? I will give you a clue. The air is warmer and what can warmer air do…. that’s right…. hold more water vapour.

Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 3:17 am

Initial radiant heat from the sun is transferred around the biosphere in a number of ways; at sea level and ground level latent heat is absorbed to produce water vapour in large quantities which after convection is released by precipitation in the upper atmosphere. The heat released is transferred in all directions by radiation. Initial radiation from the sun is reradiated primarily upwards through the atmosphere where a little is temporarily retained mostly by water vapour CO2 is a minor player in this process.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 7:01 am

Fortunately Simon, the world is not as simple as you are.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 10:56 am

MarkW
Mmmm …. rather than insult me, why don’t you tell me where I am wrong. Till then you are the simple one.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 12:00 pm

Simple, Simon, there’s a lot more in the world than just CO2 and H2O.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 12:47 pm

MarkW
Mmmm, but it is CO2 that was predicted to warm the world, if we keep increasing levels in the atmosphere. And hello we have….. and it has. So now the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold more moisture. Watt (deliberate) part of that don’t you get? Here’s a little graph to help you…
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 1:51 pm

Which makes more clouds, which reflects more sunlight, which reduces warmth. But then I’m forgetting about the latent heat when water vapor becomes clouds or rain. So we are back to thermodynamics are we ? And it is really warm at 15,000 meters isn’t it? Not that any storms reach that high or higher … oh no,no, they stay right there at ground level…
( really, I have to add a sarc tag , ok ) sarc

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 1:39 pm

Hi, Simon,
Here’s a little graph or two to help you:
Both in short time scales,
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_2002_2008.gif
(Source (hostile witness, thus, more powerful evidence, too): http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html )
and in long time scales,
CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
(Source: from comment thread here: http://euanmearns.com/can-geology-tell-us-what-is-warming-the-climate/ )

The above mechanism for glacial to interglacial variation in carbon dioxide concentration is supported by the observation that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the temperature increase by some 800-1000 years—ruling out the possibility that rising carbon dioxide concentrations were responsible for terminating glacial periods. …

(Source: Dr. Gerald Marsh, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdf (Marsh’s graph, which I was not able to copy and post here, cites the same data analysis which Mearns graph above does, i.e., Time series from the Vostok ice core showing CO2 concentration, temperature, d18Oatm, and mid-June insolation at 85oN in Wm-2. Based on Fig. 3 of J. R. Petit, et al.))
Janice

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 2:56 pm

Hi, Simon,
Here’s a little graph or two to help you:
Both in short time scales,
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_2002_2008.gif
(Source (hostile witness, thus, more powerful evidence, too): http://www.{INSERT HERE $kept1c@1$c1ence SPELLED CORRECTLYL}.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html )
and in long time scales,
CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
(Source: from comment thread here: http://euanmearns.com/can-geology-tell-us-what-is-warming-the-climate/ )

The above mechanism for glacial to interglacial variation in carbon dioxide concentration is supported by the observation that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the temperature increase by some 800-1000 years—ruling out the possibility that rising carbon dioxide concentrations were responsible for terminating glacial periods. …

(Source: Dr. Gerald Marsh, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdf (Marsh’s graph, which I was not able to copy and post here, cites the same data analysis which Mearns graph above does, i.e., Time series from the Vostok ice core showing CO2 concentration, temperature, d18Oatm, and mid-June insolation at 85oN in Wm-2. Based on Fig. 3 of J. R. Petit, et al.))
Janice

Simon
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
November 3, 2016 4:24 pm

Janice
Come on Janice, that’s a bit nawdy. The SKS article was making the point using such a short time frame (2002 -2208) was not fairly showing the correlation. They provide a much longer term graph ton the same page hat pretty much shows what the Berkeley one does.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 5:04 pm

The graph, dear Simon, is what it is, regardless of the rest of that article.
It nicely makes this point:
HUMAN CO2 UP (more than all the previous centuries combined) . WARMING STOPPED.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 7:20 pm

Janice Moore
“The graph, dear Simon, is what it is, regardless of the rest of that article.
It nicely makes this point:” That you can show anything if you cherry pick a short term interval. Long term the message is loud and clear. More CO2 = more warming.

Reply to  Simon
November 4, 2016 9:55 am

Actually, no. The very long term graphs show CO2 lagging warming by 800 years. What it means is More warming = More CO2. At least that is what the data says.

Reply to  philjourdan
November 4, 2016 11:12 am

Phil, co2 lags temperature in the short term as well. Even though the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere has increased, the last 60 years co2 increases track temperature per year. The response of CAGW has been that these are variations. I disagree. It’s every year since 1960 co2 follows temperature. From that I can say that there has been an overall warming trend. There is no other reason, in spite of year after year of increased production of co2, for co2 ppm to drop when the temperature did. It’s the temperature for certain. The graph that the warmist put up is misleading it shows yearly temperature anomolies against total co2. If they graph co2 anomolies per year against temperature anomolies per year the picture becomes crystal clear. Co2 follows temperature.

Reply to  rishrac
November 4, 2016 1:02 pm

Rishrac – I know. But simon wanted a long term trend. And you cannot get any longer than the historical ones (I suspect he will come back now and want a shorter term trend, and when you trump him with that, he will cherry pick 3 individual years to prove his ignorance).

Reply to  philjourdan
November 4, 2016 3:36 pm

There are a lot of issues I have with AGW, but this buried it. What’s left is a tombstone for AGW. I suspect as time goes by, AGW will begin to acquire a dead theory status by all. Also, keep in mind that the co2 count per year is affected by cosmic ray and solar activity.

Reply to  rishrac
November 5, 2016 2:47 am

How is the CO2 count affected by cosmic rays and solar activity?

Reply to  chemengrls
November 5, 2016 5:44 am

The co2 ppm per year follows the solar cycle from peak to peak. It is clearly in the record for the last 60 years. ( it goes back further). Cosmic ray activity also follows very closely. That pattern between cosmic rays and solar can be seen if you look at the levels in 1962 and 1963. The cosmic ray count fluctuated at that time. It was an anomaly that verified the pattern. Co2 certainly follows temperature. For the rest of the time there was no break between the solar cycle and cosmic ray activity. It seems there is a tandem effect on co2 between the 3 elements.
So, I am looking at whether the solar cycle or cosmic rays induced temperature change, or whether the lack of or additional cosmic rays add to or subtract from the co2 story. Or whether these are just indicators of some other factors that has not been identified.
Simple, it is not.
Agencies that adjust data for political purposes doesn’t help. The next few years should be very interesting. It’d be nice if the sun went into a deep sleep, (for the sake of argument ) but I’m not so sure that is going to happen. .. ( whether some solar physicists agree or disagree about the meaning of a quite sun, I do think that it is contributor to cooling, and that is a concern) . We are not prepared for cooling.
It’s difficult to just focus on one thing because this is a system that interacts. At each level of organization, new and different properties are revealed.

Reply to  rishrac
November 5, 2016 9:01 am

Thanks for that; my question was concerned with the mechanism by which cosmic rays and solar activity affect CO2 count.

Reply to  chemengrls
November 5, 2016 11:55 am

To what degree, and directly or indirectly is the question. Are co2 levels solely temperature dependent, do cosmic rays directly effect co2 levels, or via indirect and the status of the indirect elements. Is a pie chart of percentages with cosmic rays producing more than one result ? Are they also affecting temperature as well, which also controls the co2 amounts ?
I understood you wanted the mechanism, I’m saying it’s complex and a simple answer, as of yet, is not in the offing. I may have not asked all the questions available either. Somebody may know . I would find it difficult to believe that I’m the only one that is analyzing this.
Either the IPCC knew that co2 follows these elements and is committing fraud big time, or they are so dumb that they shouldn’t hold those positions. I find it hard to believe they didn’t know.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 4, 2016 7:59 am
Alan in Kansas
November 2, 2016 5:54 pm

Mr. Trump has said that, as President, with his vast business experience, he will be able to renegotiate many of the unfair trade deals that the US suffers under now. He often talks about a “level playing field”. I hope he is right! However, I am not as sanguine as many on the site seem to be.
For me, the first test of his negotiating skills has come with the recent Presidential debates. The results, biased moderators and cheating on the other side. Mr. Trump seemed genuinely caught off guard by these tricks. As a strong and savvy negotiator he should have been able to get better terms. And he should have foreseen that the other side would cheat.
If he is unable to get a “level playing field” from the Presidential Debates Commission, NBC, and the Clinton campaign, how will he be able to negotiate from a position of strength against the likes of Xi Jinxing, Vladimir Putin, or the Iranian mullahs? Will these people cheat?
The real world is not a reality TV show.
Mr. Trump, It is time for you to tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms what a “level playing field” between the USA and China would look like, in energy, in trade, and in diplomatic relations.
A Trump supporter, hopeful, but uneasy,
Alan in Kansas

Simon
Reply to  Alan in Kansas
November 2, 2016 11:37 pm

How did Clinton cheat in the Trump debates? And he doesn’t want a level playing field he wants to whack tariffs on the other countries. How level is that?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 7:01 am

Wikileaks has shown that Clinton was given the debate questions before the debate.
I’m not surprised that you are pretending to not know that.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 11:02 am

MarkW
Really?Please provide a reference that says Clinton got any questions before the Trump debates? Till then you are just blowing hot air.
Hold on to waste time I will help you. The allegation was for the democratic debates. Wrong again Mr MarkW.

Reply to  Simon
November 4, 2016 8:05 am

Guess you missed the WikiLeaks letters. It was in all the papers….NOT!
Janice harpooned you on this one. The difference between blind loyalty and supporting a candidate is you do not get blind sided if you are not blindly loyal.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 11:06 am

Here you go, Simon.

CNN has cut ties with commentator and interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile after WikiLeaks revealed that Brazile provided more primary debate questions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Source: The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

Richard Baguley
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 11:24 am

Janice, I suggest you re-read your post. Pay close attention to the words “primary debate questions.” You see Janice, Simon asked the question, “How did Clinton cheat in the Trump debates?” You seem to be confused between what a “primary debate” is and what an “election debate is.”

Reply to  Richard Baguley
November 4, 2016 8:12 am

Actually no. What makes you think the cheating stopped? What stopped was the email leaks as they were taken during the primary.
So you have to ask yourself 2 questions.
#1 – Why would a crook stop being a crook when they have not been caught?
#2 – Why did Hillary never reveal she had gotten the questions before Wikileaks proved she did?
Go sell your unicorns to the blindly faithful. This is not a forum of them.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 12:00 pm

Simple Simon does his best to not see anything that would challenge his world view.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 12:04 pm

Dear Mr. Baguley,
I did, indeed, read too hastily Simon’s question. Thank you for the correction.
Clinton had to cheat to beat Bernie Sanders. In the Trump debates, she didn’t need the questions ahead of time. She had the patently biased moderators to help (and if you do not think that they did that, you did not watch the debates; it was blatant).
Sincerely,
Janice Moore

Janice Moore
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 12:17 pm

Dear Mr. Baguley,
I did, indeed, read too hastily Simon’s question. Thank you for the correction.
Clinton had to cheat to beat Bernie Sanders. In the Trump debates, she didn’t need the questions ahead of time. She had the patently biased m0derat0rs to help (and if you do not think that they did, you did not watch the debates; it was blatant).
Sincerely,
Janice Moore

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 3, 2016 12:50 pm

MarkW
“Simple Simon does his best to not see anything that would challenge his world view.”
I am going to take it from this rather weird (Trumpish) reply, you are conceding I am right.

Neo
November 2, 2016 6:16 pm

Trump should send the agreements to the Senate for an up or down vote

TA
Reply to  Neo
November 6, 2016 6:00 am

“Trump should send the agreements to the Senate for an up or down vote”
Yes, that’s the way to officially kill it. Then the climate alarmists will have lots of people to complain about, not just Trump.

Simon
November 2, 2016 7:19 pm

Eric
Where in this does China “demand” anything?

Simon
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 7:48 pm

Yeah… Nah. A demand is a demand. Eric is just winding up the faithful.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 7:57 pm

Simon: You should stop saying such things about Eric.
😉

SMC
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 2, 2016 8:48 pm

Simon, don’t you mean the skeptical? ‘Faithful’ is an adjective I would apply to the CAGW believers.

yarpos
November 2, 2016 7:37 pm

I must have missed the global policy trend of declaring ownership of swathes of international waters and building military complexes on man made islands. Must be there, surely China wouldnt be just going it alone being such a great international citizen and all.

November 2, 2016 8:22 pm

Xie is best buds with Podesta and Todd D Stern of State. and is well aware of how much money can be made through the climate trading scam.

Old Grump
November 2, 2016 8:23 pm

“I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,” China’s veteran climate chief said.
Does this mean that China is finally admitting the Chairman Mao was not “a wise political leader?”

RBom
November 2, 2016 8:23 pm

In a research project negotiations more than 10-years past I was told that the life of a “Big Whitey American” was 100-times less than a Japanese man. So “Big Whitey American” had to do 100-times the work at 10-percent the cost, on Japan-man exchange basis, or no deal.
No deal won the day.
Ja ja

pkatt
November 2, 2016 9:02 pm

I’d just reply with one line: get used to disappointment.

hunter
November 2, 2016 11:40 pm

There is no reason to believe that the Chinese carbon trading scheme will work. The Chinese gentleman may be speaking for the Chinese regime “officially”, but he is still rent seeking: he is defending his personal turf. And given that China us extremely harsh with even high level embezzelers, and given how corrupt every green enterprise is shown to be, the gentleman is certainly very motivated indeed.

Amber
November 3, 2016 1:35 am

Trump ain’t no chump and American tax payers will be spending all that cash promised China
draining the Washington swamp .
China here’s some free advice … send Hillary’s Emails back before they get taken back .
The days of the corrupt Washington administration are over .
They got caught but unlike China’s justice they won’t get a bullet just a nice cosy cell .
The USA is coming back .The crooks and other self dealers are going to be on the street or in a cell .

Marcus
Reply to  Amber
November 3, 2016 2:19 am

+ 999 gold stars…

Robert from oz
November 3, 2016 2:30 am

FU Xie !

cedarhill
November 3, 2016 4:07 am

Wow! It’s as if the Chinese have joined the Russians in helping Trump’s campaign? If Trump wins, it will be a wild, wild ride for a while – – – provided he does what he’s stated in his campaign.

Rob
November 3, 2016 4:11 am

I sure they would love to see the US handcuffed economically, so China can do what it wants.

Berényi Péter
November 3, 2016 6:35 am

a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends

The Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 was definitely not in line with global trends, neither its treatment by Chinese communists since then. Therefore they are not “wise political leaders”, but something else. Q.E.D.
As for environmental policy, China tops WHO list for deadly outdoor air pollution.
Mr. Xie would better be very silent.

Just some guy
November 3, 2016 11:01 am

“a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends.”
F you China.

Janice Moore
November 3, 2016 1:42 pm

Hi, Simon,
Here’s a little graph or two to help you:
Both in short time scales,
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_2002_2008.gif
(Source (hostile witness, thus, more powerful evidence, too): http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html )
and in long time scales,
CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
(Source: from comment thread here: http://euanmearns.com/can-geology-tell-us-what-is-warming-the-climate/ )

The above mechanism for glacial to interglacial variation in carbon dioxide concentration is supported by the observation that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the temperature increase by some 800-1000 years—ruling out the possibility that rising carbon dioxide concentrations were responsible for terminating glacial periods. …

(Source: Dr. Gerald Marsh, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdf (Marsh’s graph, which I was not able to copy and post here, cites the same data analysis which Mearns graph above does, i.e., Time series from the Vostok ice core showing CO2 concentration, temperature, d18Oatm, and mid-June insolation at 85oN in Wm-2. Based on Fig. 3 of J. R. Petit, et al.))
Janice

Griff
November 4, 2016 3:33 am

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/paris-climate-change-agreement-enters-into-force
“The Paris agreement on climate change enters into force on Friday, marking the first time that governments have agreed legally binding limits to global temperature rises.
Under the agreement, all governments that have ratified the accord, which includes the US, China, India and the EU, now carry an obligation to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels”

Joey
November 4, 2016 8:30 am

“Demands”, eh? Shove it, Comrade. That might work in your country, but not here.

TA
November 6, 2016 6:10 am

China’s leaders ought to let their citizens access WUWT. We could have some good discussions.
But China’s leaders are afraid to give this much freedom to their citizens. Instead, they block out the world to Chinese citizens.
Unfortunately, China’s leaders are not the only censors in the world. Even some western nations censor their citizens to a point that would outrage an American citizen if the U.S. government tried to censor them to that extent. U.S. citizens should consider themselves very lucky to be able to speak freely the way they do. It’s not that way in other parts of the world.